In December 2019, the United States House of Representatives passed two articles against the current President of the USA. The House passed the Abuse of Power article by a vote of 230 to 197 to 1 and the Obstruction of Congress article by a vote of 229 to 198 to 1. Although by then, Trump may not have been formally removed from office – he had become the third president to ever become impeached in the United States House. There were legal grounds for his impeachment (as mentioned above in the articles passed against him) but were there ethical and moral grounds sanctioning his impeachment? In this article, I will try to explore both the legal and ethical precedents for Trump's impeachment and the moral/ethical laws which he has broken.
The legal grounds for the Trump impeachment are very clear. Firstly, he abused the power bestowed upon him by the people of the United States of America. Ukraine is fighting a war with Russia at the moment over Russia's annexation of Crimea so Ukraine is looking for all the foreign support that it can muster. Trump attempted to allegedly exploit this situation by establishing his own quid pro quo scenario: if President Zelensky of Ukraine were to "find dirt" on Hunter Biden (the son of Joe Biden who is Trump's current biggest competition for the presidency in 2020), Trump would release a congressionally mandated $400,000,000 military aid package to Ukraine. This scandal reached the public in mid-September in 2019 which raised questions about Trump's ability to rule a nation. He used his powers to not "make America great again", but for his advantage and personal gain.
This prompted an impeachment inquiry as people began to wonder, once again, was Trump fit to govern a nation which has historically been a very powerful country and very vital to numerous international organisations? Trump tried his best to cover up his conversations with Zelensky, he tried to prevent congress from impeaching him but this led to an even more severe consequence as Democrats effectively accused him of the worst case of presidential obstruction of Congress in the country’s history. The impeachment report from 03/12/2019 stated that:
“Donald Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to seek to completely obstruct an impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives under Article I of the Constitution, which vests the House with the ‘sole power of impeachment. He has publicly and repeatedly rejected the authority of Congress to conduct oversight of his actions and has directly challenged the authority of the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry into his actions regarding Ukraine.”
Trump had exploited the power of presidency and then "flouted the Constitution and power of Congress.". Indeed, by looking at the case studies and examples above, we can agree that there were legal grounds to impeach Trump. We all know that we has become the third president to be formally impeached but we do not know whether he will become the first president to be removed from office. The two previous presidents (Johnson and Clinton) to be impeached in the House of Representatives were both acquitted of their crimes by the senate but it cannot be said that there is a definitive outcome for Trump's upcoming trial. He most probably will be acquitted of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours” due to the necessity for two-thirds of the senate to vote in favour of Trump's conviction and removal. This means that 45 Democrats, two Independents and twenty Republicans need to vote in favour of conviction and removal. The likelihood of 20 republicans voting in favour of conviction is practically zero. The Republicans do not have the courage to stand up against Trump as they want to keep their jobs. The trials of Trump in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are legally substantiated, even if he will not be removed from office.
But are their claims and the trials morally substantiated?
I will now move the focus of this article onto Immanuel Kant and his 'moral laws of the universe'. Immanuel Kant believes that our human nature is that we are in constant turmoil between the Animal and Angel aspects of our soul. This means that we are in a constant battle between our personal desires and our ethical, reason-based actions. We feel the effects of our desires (Animal side) but we can use our free will – Kant believes that we are free and have free will enabling us to make coherence of the world using the Transcendental Ego, cause change through intention and enabling us to reflect upon our choices and self – to make ethical decisions which comply with Kant’s Categorical Imperative (his moral laws of the universe). Kant believes that if we were to give in to the Animal side of our soul, we would make quick, unreasonable and unethical decisions in response to a stimulus but if we were to follow our Angel, we would use reason – Kant defines ‘reason’ as an uncaused choice – to make ethical decisions following his Categorical Imperative. The moral laws of the universe are as follows: (1) The Law of Universalisability: the principles of human actions are more important than the actions itself so a good intention acts are morally correct; (2) Treat people as an end: we should never use people to our advantage as people have value. By using reason, we can comply with these two laws of morality and commit ethical actions in the world.
Our angelic part of our Human Nature is what pushes us to be ethical through using reason so, therefore, using the animal side of our human nature is unethical. [To read my critique on Kant's theory on Human Nature and Ethics, click here].
Understanding the Kantian Categorical Imperative can incite our understanding that yes, Trump is morally wrong and should be removed from power. He firstly went against Kant's Law of Universalisability. We should judge Trump by his intent and the causality of his actions rather than the outcomes of the action themselves. But, even by looking at Trump's intentions, we can validate all claims against him. His intent was unethical since the beginning of the Ukraine scandal. Trump wanted to 'blackmail' Joe Biden through gathering intel from President Zelensky. But he could only gather this intel through the extortion of the Ukrainian Crimea conflict with Russia. Even if Trump was not the President, he would still be held morally accountable for his actions. From the start, he aimed to act in self-interest and to harm others rather than help them. By Kantian logic, he would be classified morally impure and an unethical character.
Secondly, Donald Trump directly and blatantly violated the second rule of Kantian Categorical Imperative. He did not use people as an end, he used them as means to an end. Trump did not recognise the intrinsic human value that everyone in the world has. He committed actions with malintent that he would never wish upon himself. To put it simply, Trump violated the basic rule of human existence: he did not treat people the way he would want to be treated. He extorted the human suffering in Crimea and the vulnerability of Ukraine to secure another Presidential term in 2020. This is a definite violation of treating people as an end as he used people to his advantage and benefit.
Trump, by no means, acted ethically. Immanuel Kant would state that Trump succumbed to his animal side of his human soul: he gave into animalistic desires and his appetite and, thereby, is morally in the wrong. Using this conclusion, we can understand that there were and still are moral grounds for Trumps' impeachment as he violated the Kantian Categorical Imperative.
Part two of my ethical assessment of Trump's impeachment process can be found here: https://yashmahajan.wixsite.com/yashtheory/home/aristotle-on-trump-s-acquittal. My second article is focussing on his acquittal and the repercussions of it.
(An image edit that I made; the sources for the images are below)
Sources Cited:
Rauhut, N. C. (2010). Ultimate Questions: Thinking about Philosophy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson College Division.